"Hal Finney" wrote:

> The first is that numbers are really far more complex than they seem.
> When we think of numbers, we tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7.
> But they are not really typical of numbers.  Even restricting ourselves to
> the integers, the information content of the "average" number is enormous;
> by some reasoning, infinite.  Most numbers are a lot bigger than 2 or 7!
> They are big enough to hold all of the information in our whole universe;
> indeed, all of the information in virtually every possible variant of our
> universe.  A single number can (in some sense) hold this much information.

How ? Surely this claim needs justification!

> On the one hand, we know that the universe is dynamic and ever-changing.
> On the other, the four-dimensional block universe is a static object.
> The apparent dynamism is seen as something of an illusion.  There is
> no actual passage of time, rather all moments coexist.  The future and
> the past are merely relative directions like north or south, relative
> to some observer.
> The block universe (or spacetime) is not the only way to look at things,
> but it is one valid way,

I don't see why it should be *as* valid as views that account for
dynamisn, even as a subjective phenomenon. The more a theory
explains, the better it is.

> and it illustrates that even within a static
> object (the block universe) there may be the perception of dynamism from
> the inside.

How? No-one ever explains this.

> The point is, then, that conceivably a seemingly "static"
> number of sufficient complexity could have similar internal dynamism.

How ? Why should piling on more static structure lead to dynamism ?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to